airplanes were flown into them. There were no bombs at the bottom of the building. There was no controlled demolition. If anyone disagrees with the NIST report on the collapse, please comment.
airplanes were flown into them. There were no bombs at the bottom of the building. There was no controlled demolition. If anyone disagrees with the NIST report on the collapse, please comment.
well actually about 99.99% of the content of this bullettin board are the comments you're looking for. the archives are full of such.Originally Posted by richard
just look around a bit and you will find more than enough to keep you busy for quite a while...
greetings
Ummmmm, we ALL disagree with the NIST report to varying degrees. Search here man. Are you asking to start trouble, or do you really want to know? It's all here. I wish I had seen this an hour ago, but I hafta run and go to work. The links are here.
Only a complete IDIOT still believes that jet fuel and impact brought down the towers.
Ask "Who controlled the demolition?" ..... then you will be starting down the right path.
Steven Jones pretty much sums up the Controlled Demolition of both towers and building 7.
NIST's own report and tests show the steel in the buildings should not have failed. NIST only offers explanation for what initiated collapse but didn't cover what caused the entire building to collapse. NIST has yet to release a report on building 7. Their current tests and investigations are including the use of explosives to initiate collapse in building 7.
William Rodriguez is a living eyewitness of the controlled demolition and has given several vivid accounts of the events of that day. NYPD and NYFD know there were bombs in the buildings.
You're either completely ignorant or completely corrupt if you still believe the "official myth" about 9/11.
As everyone else has mentioned, this board is full of archives, just pick a topic and read.
If you have come in here in hopes of creating confusion, division, or sway one of us here out of what we already know is true, you would just be wasting your time.
Hmmm, only a complete idiot would believe that. Well, no structural engineers accomplished in forensics have disagreed with the NIST report. In fact, those that have spoken on the subject have affirmed the NIST account. I do not believe that these gentlemen are idiots nor do I believe that they are all in on a conspiracy. I also wonder why you believe yourself to be such an expert on the matter.
I have continually heard from conspiracy theorists that the impact of the plane + ensuing fires could not have brought down the towers. I read the NIST report on the two towers, and have found nothing to disagree with. As a structural engineer myself, I've analyzed several buildings before and understand the information in the report.
Almost all the conspiracy sites I have been to have over-simplified and incorrect assessments for how the NIST report is wrong. They continually point out that other large burning buildings have burnt for much longer without failing, without even mentioning the detrimental effect of the World Trade Center's spray on insulation getting knocked off.
I should've been more specific in my question. I would like to know if any well-accomplished structural engineers involved in forensics have significant disagreements with the NIST report. I'm not referring to civil engineers who've touched on structures or physics professors. I'm not talking about demolition experts. I'm talking about structural engineers with a PhD, who specialize in analyzing failed buildings. There are plenty of them out there, but I haven't heard of a single one disagreeing with the NIST report. Trust me, they know way more about the subject than any physics professor. I don't have a closed mind on this subject. But before I give this conspiracy theory serious thought, I do insist that I hear from a valid expert on the subject and not just some random engineer whose points don't make sense anyway.
First off...This is the internet son, we're all Structural engineers.
That said, I tend to agree with NISTs findings, although I disagree with their conclusion. NIST found several of the steel columns from both towers. The columns in question were all located on floors that had been impacted by the Jets and where the hottest fires had occurred. NIST said that none of the columns tested were have found to have been exposed to anything over 600 or so celsius. NIST also tested many of the floor/truss assemblies. All passed the required fire testing. Which is (If I recall correctly) to be exposed to over 1000 celsius for atleast two hours. The documentary "9/11 Mysteries" has video from the NIST tests you can see for yourself. Secondly, NIST has never once explained what caused both WTC 1 and 2 to completely collapse to the ground. They only attempted to explain what initiated "glabal collapse". Furthermore, I reidderate that NIST has yet to provide a report on bldg. 7 and their current investigation is using controlled demolition through explosive charges as a possible "global collapse" initiater.
FEMA in following the same hypothesis as NIST, said this hypothesis had a "low probability of occurrance".
On a side note: I have spoken to several Cal-Trans engineer's who privately do not believe the official story. Unfortunately in three years of attempts they have refused to go on record and let me bring a tape-recorder. Yes, these are engineers who decide if California freeways are properly fitted for Earthquakes.
I doubt that everyone on this site is a structural engineer, and I don't understand why I should assume everyone is a structural engineer here just because it's the internet. But at least you've read the report, son. The NIST report on WTC 7 has not been published yet, but I have read the preliminary report. I admit that the failure of WTC 7 will be far more difficult to classify.
You say that several Cal- Trans engineers privately do not believe the story. That's fine, if they were to go public with it I'd be happy to read what they have to say. Once again, I have an open mind on the subject. I'm not knowledgable about the subject of military simulations: I prefer to analyze structural aspects rather than chase conspiracy theories. That's what I'm familiar with and that's what I'm interested in. If I came to the conclusion that the Towers may have fallen due to some other circumstance, then I will review other information regarding the conspiracy.
Please point out to me where in the report it says that none of the columns were heated to 600 degrees C. I didn't notice that.
The term "global collapse" means that the whole building fails. The NIST report reviews what initiated the global collapse. "Disproportionate collapse" refers to the whole building's collapse being initiated by the failure of a few critical elements. Such is believed to be the failure of WTC 7. I have no doubt that if demolition is a possible failure for the building, NIST will not neglect to explore that failure mechanism.
The trusses subjected to 1000 degrees C for two hours had their spray on insulation intact, unlike many of the trusses in the Towers after the collapse. The purpose of that test was to determine whether or not the trusses with the insulation on were up to code or not, which they were. As you know, being a structural engineer, there is no possible way that trusses without thermal insulation would be keep their original form if they were subjected to 1000 degrees C for two hours.
I guess what you meant by that is that you don't believe I'm a structural engineer. Well, regardless of what you believe, I am a structural engineer, though I'm just starting out. I do have a Master's in Structural Engineering, but I still don't think I'm qualified to diagnose a disaster such as the World Trade Center. I took an earthquake design class in school, but I design in Texas, so we consider wind as a controlling factor instead. Neverless, earthquake engineering have little with the World Trade Center collapse. Earthquake loads are dynamic loads, and cause buildings to oscillate. Earthquake engineering is concerned with the natural period of the building and dampening the oscillations. The WTC Towers did oscillate a little bit, which knocked of some of the insulation, but that's about as much as it has to due with the towers. It might have something to due with the WTC 7 collapse, but I don't know about that yet. Anyway, have a nice day.
Well considering its a graphic in the main report, it should be easy to locate. Its actually a over-head floorplan view highlighting the structures. They made several graphics for each floor to not only show heat exposure but damage due to the plane impacts.
Negative, I suggest you view the videos of the tests and review the report. Pretty sure both scenarios were tested. Besides, Structural steel, as you know is given an ASTM rating before fireproofing would be added. Not to mention that a structural engineer would also not consider fireproofing when calculating load bearing under normal conditions, and what building code requires. Fireproofing is only added to decrease a specific columns exposier to fire should on occur in that area.
Furthermore, as you would agree the Floor Trusses only were responsible for bearing the load of that floor and the weight directly connected to its surface area. IE, people, office furniture, etc. Its also largely agreed that the building redistrbuted the load to the remaining intact intact steel box columns and curtain wall members where the planes initially entered the building. Like a pencil penetrating a misquito netting.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote